1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to dispensers, and more specifically to duration spray dispensers that do not rely upon propellant gases that are harmful to the environment.
2. Background Art
Both propellant driven and mechanically operated aerosol dispensers are and have been in use for many years and are still popular due to their convenience. However, propellant driven dispensers that rely upon chemical propellants are being scrutinized more closely and restrictions imposed upon them due to the adverse impact of these propellants upon the environment, as well as the hazards of handling them and the related insurance issues.
Mechanically operated spray dispensers lack the convenience of propellant driven dispensers, but they are bulky and require a large amount of material and parts to produce. Moreover, energy costs keep rising, resulting in increased costs to mold and manufacture them. Further, persons suffering from arthritis or other infirmities find it difficult to use mechanically operated dispensers due to the multiple steps required in their operation. In some cases, the number of parts required in the construction of these devices makes them too costly for consumers. On the other hand, manufacturers of lower cost propellant-driven products, including bag-in-a-can and pressure driven piston devices, are reluctant in general to change from the propellant-driven aerosol systems. A new consideration is not favorable.
Systems other than propellant driven types use other alternatives for dispensing product. For example, some devices employ means with storage chambers, requiring the transfer of product within a two stage loading process, wherein a metered amount of product must be obtained from a storage chamber as the first stage and then transferred into a second stage power chamber before it can be dispensed from the second stage over a given duration. Other systems require venting, exposing the product to atmosphere during extensive periods between usage by the consumer. This can affect the efficacy of product and cause potential clogging and possible contamination as well. There is still a need to isolate the product from air or propellants within the container. The mechanically operated non-propellant systems are more appealing in lots of ways in that the environment is protected from harmful propellants and the process is less vulnerable to liabilities and constraints presently imposed on delivery systems using chemical propellants. The present invention offers an alternative that still provides equivalent results in delivering products such as food without preservatives, room fresheners, hairsprays, furniture polishes, personal care and pharmaceutical products without the problems that chemical propellants and venting pose.
The following patents exhibit some of the pitfalls of prior art devices.
U.S. Pat. No. Hoffman Jr.Utilizes a gaseous propellant driven piston cup3,022,923to expel product through a valve means.U.S. Pat. No.MercerA pressure vessel with intervening bladder of 3,319,420a non-permeable material which houses and isolates oil or oil base products from the surrounding compressed gas.U.S. Pat. No.BauerUtilizes a cascading ductile metal bladder 3,494,513expulsion tank, folded in accordion fashionU.S. Pat. No.LaauweAn aerosol system with a rigid vessel and an 3,788,521inner flexible container similar to a bag-on-valve.U.S. Pat. No.HorvathRechargeable cam operated sprayer device.3,790,034U.S. Pat. No.HorvathA vertical finger pump that utilizes air assist on 4,057,176each reciprocal actuation of the actuator.U.S. Pat. No.CohenUses a collapsible bellows or piston in a bore of 4,067,499a product vessel as a non-venting system.U.S. Pat. No.BeeryA vertical actuated Pump with an Air Vent 4,249,676Check valve that prevents outward flow of liquid through the air intake passage.U.S. Pat. No.B1akeUses storage chamber and venting that 6,708,853exposes product.B2WO AbplanalpUses an Air charge upon Vessel of product.95/01300
The systems disclosed in the prior art cited above are generally too expensive for commercial acceptance and feasibility in some market applications for mass production at high levels.
Despite the efforts of such devices as shown in the forgoing patents, there remains a need for a more convenient, compact, portable, self-charged duration spray device that can perform in most environments, is operated in a way that is comparable to the devices that consumers are accustomed to, is easy to use and environmentally friendly, and does not contaminate the product or require venting. Applicant is not aware of any currently available system that could be considered “GREEN” and user friendly as well.